Mulroney's testimony in Parliament

[August1991]

That he spent four hours writing what he wrote at the committee table. There was no printer in the room and no way for him to have printed up the pages he was reading from.

Who cares where Hiebert got his questions anymore than where the Liberal committee members got theirs. Is anyone surprised that Parliament is a partisan place?

I watched (on the Internet) Mulroney's testimony and then Menard's cross-examination. I think this is a good start on making the House a more useful place of democracy. Televised committee hearings are much better (and interesting) than Question Period. If Harper intends this to be a new approach to accountability, then he's on the right track. Some people might say that it makes Parliament ressemble the US Congress but so what. It works and God knows that the federal government needs more oversight, and checks and balances.

BTW, it was good to see Menard again. He was an important PQ minister and he brought to heel the Hell's Angels in Quebec. This committee put to good use his talents.

-----

IMO, Mulroney answered adequately all the outstanding questions. Mulroney explained why Shreiber paid him the money, he explained why he didn't register as a lobbyist, he explained why he delayed declaring it as income. Mulroney even had an explanation for why he was paid in cash. (Minor curious point: what currency was it? US or Canadian?) The dates fit and it's clear that mulroney did nothing illegal.

The story even makes sense. Except for one aspect. After hearing so many other explanations and versions, why are we hearing the "truth" now? At various times, for example, it was mooted that the money was for a pasta factory or as a thank you for German reunification. Luc Lavoie even implied that Mulroney was broke and Shreiber was helping out an old friend.

All of these previous versions are now superceded by Mulroney's much better explanation given in his testimony. It's a litle too seemless and a little too convenient. Mitterand and Yetsin are dead so that can't say whether Mulroney really tried to sell them "peacekeeping vehicles". Mulroney only gave oral reports of his activities and any paper records have been destroyed.

This investigation will go nowhere now. It's like Watergate without the tapes.

Last point. Compare Mulroney's appearance in Ottawa with Chretien's appearance at Gomery. Chretien was flippant and cavalier. Mulroney was serious and earnest. Fat lot of good it did for Mulroney. Chretien can go about life with respect from the chattering classes while Mulroney is distrusted even more. That's a sad statement on Canadian politics at the federal level.

Edited December 14, 2007 by August1991

[jdobbin]

Who cares where Hiebert got his questions anymore than where the Liberal committee members got theirs. Is anyone surprised that Parliament is a partisan place?

I watched (on the Internet) Mulroney's testimony and then Menard's cross-examination. I think this is a good start on making the House a more useful place of democracy. Televised committee hearings are much better (and interesting) than Question Period. If Harper intends this to be a new approach to accountability, then he's on the right track. Some people might say that it makes Parliament ressemble the US Congress but so what. It works and God knows that the federal government needs more oversight, and checks and balances.

Last point. Compare Mulroney's appearance in Ottawa with Chretien's appearance at Gomery. Chretien was flippant and cavalier. Mulroney was serious and earnest. Fat lot of good it did for Mulroney. Chretien can go about life with respect from the chattering classes while Mulroney is distrusted even more. That's a sad statement on Canadian politics at the federal level.

I was just pointing out that Hiebert was a liar. I think the people who voted for him might want to know that even if you don't care.

It seems clear Mulroney doesn't want to have the inquiry now. He said so in the ethics committee. Mulroney giving advice to Harper again?

As far as your declaration of Mulroney's innocence. I'd like to hear more on the money, on the taxes paid, the timing of when those taxes paid, from what accounts that money was paid from and what services were rendered.

Edited December 14, 2007 by jdobbin

[August1991]

As far as your declaration of Mulroney's innocence. I'd like to hear more on the money, on the taxes paid, the timing of when those taxes paid, from what accounts that money was paid from and what services were rendered.

Mulroney provided adequate answers to all those questions. Go watch his testimony again.

There is the question of what Schreiber did with teh $20 million or so that he received but that's not Mulroney's affair.

[gc1765]

Except for one aspect. After hearing so many other explanations and versions, why are we hearing the "truth" now? At various times, for example, it was mooted that the money was for a pasta factory or as a thank you for German reunification.

One other thing I think he didn't explain adequately is why, in his lawsuit against the government, he testified that he never had any dealings with Schreiber?

This investigation will go nowhere now. It's like Watergate without the tapes.

I think it will be very hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mulroney is guilty, especially when the testimony of Schreiber is not reliable. But, any reasonable person can conclude that this whole thing looks very suspicious, and that Mulroney is almost certainly guilty. Otherwise, there would be no need to lie or change stories.

[jdobbin]

Mulroney provided adequate answers to all those questions. Go watch his testimony again.

There is the question of what Schreiber did with teh $20 million or so that he received but that's not Mulroney's affair.

Why did he say he had no dealings with Shreiber under oath when he in fact had been paid $300,000? Why does he think he is entitled to the $2 million when he did have a relationship with the man? Go read his sworn testimony.

I think you might be the only one convinced by Mulroney's testimony.

Edited December 14, 2007 by jdobbin

[Carinthia]

Did you happen to hear the resounding THUNK as 30 million Canadians fell off the turnip truck after listening to Mulroney's testimony? Pathetic! As Lyndon McIntyre said on Don Newman's show..."bloated embroidery".

[capricorn]

As far as your declaration of Mulroney's innocence. I'd like to hear more on the money, on the taxes paid, the timing of when those taxes paid, from what accounts that money was paid from and what services were rendered.

From a taxation perspective, I agree all is not clear. As others more qualified and informed than I have said, the residual questions could be handled by a special prosecutor to look into the matter. The question seems to be this. Is Mulroney's tax situation of such national importance that a public inquiry costing millions is required to find out if he broke tax laws? What else is there to investigate?

[capricorn]

Did you happen to hear the resounding THUNK as 30 million Canadians fell off the turnip truck after listening to Mulroney's testimony? Pathetic! As Lyndon McIntyre said on Don Newman's show..."bloated embroidery".

30 million Canadians listened to Mulroney's testimony? Are you sure about that Carinthia?

[Carinthia]

30 million Canadians listened to Mulroney's testimony? Are you sure about that Carinthia?

Well... a couple of million anyway...I do exagerate. Besides, the Canucks are losing to San Jose and that makes me bitchy.

[Michael Bluth]

Well... a couple of million anyway...I do exagerate. Besides, the Canucks are losing to San Jose and that makes me bitchy.

It's a good thing there are no committee hearings on Saturday before your nucks get crushed by the mighty Oil.

Very good points made on the National tonight.

If the inquiry goes ahead, it's 50-50 now, it will be very limited in scope. No discussion of Airbus for sure.

Edited December 14, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[Riverwind]

From a taxation perspective, I agree all is not clear. As others more qualified and informed than I have said, the residual questions could be handled by a special prosecutor to look into the matter. The question seems to be this. Is Mulroney's tax situation of such national importance that a public inquiry costing millions is required to find out if he broke tax laws? What else is there to investigate?

I am pretty sure Mulroney covered his legal bases on the tax law. Revenue Canada has an amnesty program for tax evaders - i.e. pay up before we catch you and you are only liable for some interest.

[jdobbin]

From a taxation perspective, I agree all is not clear. As others more qualified and informed than I have said, the residual questions could be handled by a special prosecutor to look into the matter. The question seems to be this. Is Mulroney's tax situation of such national importance that a public inquiry costing millions is required to find out if he broke tax laws? What else is there to investigate?

The Tories have been saying there has been nothing worth investigating for some time now.

I don't know if it is just tax laws that have been violated. At the moment, it doesn't look at all like Mulroney has been honest about any of what happened.

[Michael Bluth]

I am pretty sure Mulroney covered his legal bases on the tax law. Revenue Canada has an amnesty program for tax evaders - i.e. pay up before we catch you and you are only liable for some interest.

It is doubtful that Mulroney broke any laws.

It goes without question that no tax laws were broken. Any potential for prosecution was nullified when Mulroney's lawyers struck the deal with the CRA to pay the bill. Must have been a pretty big fine, but still legal.

[capricorn]

Well... a couple of million anyway...I do exagerate. Besides, the Canucks are losing to San Jose and that makes me bitchy.

That I understand perfectly...like when my Ottawa Senators are in a slump then I cry in my beer.

[jdobbin]

I am pretty sure Mulroney covered his legal bases on the tax law. Revenue Canada has an amnesty program for tax evaders - i.e. pay up before we catch you and you are only liable for some interest.

The details of what services rendered for the money remain a question. It hasn't been adequately explained what was being paid for. Mulroney has provided no evidence that he was being paid for lobbying outside of Canada. None. He destroyed all paperwork, all expenses. He kept the money in a safe deposit box rather than create a record of it in a bank account. His explanations are all very weak.

[Carinthia]

The Tories have been saying there has been nothing worth investigating for some time now.

I don't know if it is just tax laws that have been violated. At the moment, it doesn't look at all like Mulroney has been honest about any of what happened.

Hiding many thousands of dollars in tin boxes in New York might be a good clue. Why wouldn't he do what any other businessman would do? Keep the money in an interest bearing something or other. And the interest rates in those days weren't too shabby. I'm with the guy from Winnipeg who bluntly said that he didn't believe any of it.

[capricorn]

I am pretty sure Mulroney covered his legal bases on the tax law. Revenue Canada has an amnesty program for tax evaders - i.e. pay up before we catch you and you are only liable for some interest.

One Ethics Committee member asked if Mulroney would produce his tax file to back up his testimony. Mulroney was not keen. I wonder if the Committee has the power to obtain those tax files.

[capricorn]

I don't know if it is just tax laws that have been violated. At the moment, it doesn't look at all like Mulroney has been honest about any of what happened.

Oh well, I suppose the next poll will indicate whether your opinion is predominant among the Canadian public. It remains to be seen.

[Carinthia]

That I understand perfectly...like when my Ottawa Senators are in a slump then I cry in my beer.

I'm slugging back tea as I don't dare get into the beer. This is lookin real bad! I want to see all the young folks celebrating in downtown Vancouver just once before I start pushin daisies... sigh. Back on track now...sorry to derail.

[capricorn]

The details of what services rendered for the money remain a question. It hasn't been adequately explained what was being paid for. Mulroney has provided no evidence that he was being paid for lobbying outside of Canada. None. He destroyed all paperwork, all expenses. He kept the money in a safe deposit box rather than create a record of it in a bank account. His explanations are all very weak.

He is a crafty devil, isn't he?

[gc1765]

Oh well, I suppose the next poll will indicate whether your opinion is predominant among the Canadian public. It remains to be seen.

Apparently it is:

A new poll suggests only one in 10 Canadians believe Brian Mulroney is telling the truth about his business relationship with German-Canadian arms broker Karlheinz Schreiber.

Link

[August1991]

Why did he say he had no dealings with Shreiber under oath when he in fact had been paid $300,000? Why does he think he is entitled to the $2 million when he did have a relationship with the man? Go read his sworn testimony.

Mulroney clearly explained why. He was questioned in Quebec according to witness rules in Quebec. Nine government lawyers questioned him about Airbus and Mulroney was under no obligation to answer other questions. In any case, they didn't ask. As Mulroney made plain, the transcript makes it clear that Mulroney answered truthfully the questions in context. This is not a Clinton-style parsing of definitions.

If you are curious, I suggest you go and listen to Mulroney's testimony.

You can watch it here.

Incidentally, Mulroney did not receive one penny of the $2.1 million settlement. The money was used to pay his legal and advisor bills.

Edited December 14, 2007 by August1991

[gc1765]

It is doubtful that Mulroney broke any laws.

Seriously? You don't think he broke any laws? If he is innocent, why all the lies? Why change stories? Why was the cash put into a safety deposit box where there would be no records? Why are there no receipts, etc.?

[capricorn]

Apparently it is:

Link

That poll was taken Dec. 4-10, before Mulroney testified. I was referring to the next poll which will gauge opinions on the impact of Mulroney's testimony.

[gc1765]

Mulroney clearly explained why. He was questioned in Quebec according to witness rules in Quebec. Nine government lawyers questioned him about Airbus and Mulroney was under no obligation to answer other questions. In any case, they didn't ask. As Mulroney made plain, the transcript makes it clear that Mulroney answered truthfully the questions in context. This is not a Clinton-style parsing of definitions.

That's exactly what it is. What is the definition of "dealings". Seems to me that a business deal would be considered a dealing. If that's not bad enough, at the very least he omitted a very important aspect of his relationship with Schreiber. Apparently a "cup of coffee" was worth mentioning, but a so-called business deal worth $225,000 wasn't worth mentioning?